2017 (8) TMI 692 - AT - Central Excise

Excisability/marketability - ducts - fabrication of Ducts during the process of execution - Held that - air-conditioning plant was in the nature of a system and not machinery or goods. - reliance placed in the appellant s own case M/s ETA Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Mr. V. Seshadri Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore 2016 (10) TMI 33 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held that the demands are not sustainable and the same are set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (A) setting aside the Order-in-Original and allowing the appeal of the assessee regarding the classification of fabricated ducts for HVAC systems under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
The appeal by the Revenue was filed against the impugned order dated 23.12.2003, where the Commissioner (A) set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The case revolved around the classification of ducts fabricated by the respondent-assessee for HVAC systems. The Department contended that these ducts should be classified as "hollow profiles" chargeable to duty under a specific subheading of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Additional Commissioner confirmed a duty demand on the manufactured ducts and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (A) reversed this decision, stating that the ducts were not marketable goods and hence not excisable. The Revenue challenged this decision in the present appeal.

During the hearing, the Revenue argued that the impugned order was not sustainable as the Commissioner (A) allegedly did not consider the facts and evidence properly. They claimed that the goods were marketable and being sold across the country after payment of duty. The Revenue also highlighted the emergence of a new commodity during the fabrication process for air conditioners. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent-assessee referred to a previous Tribunal order in favor of the assessee and emphasized that the Revenue had not followed relevant circulars and contracts. The counsel cited various decisions supporting the assessee's position, indicating that the issue had been settled in favor of the assessee.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the assessee's case as a decisive factor. The Tribunal found that the issue was conclusively settled in favor of the assessee based on previous legal precedents and therefore ruled against the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, previous legal precedents, and the specific facts and arguments presented by both parties during the hearing. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper classification of goods for excise duty purposes and the significance of following relevant circulars and legal decisions in such matters.